” That’s because there may not have been a gene which made humanity, but a subtle complex of numerous genetic and cultural changes which transitioned at a critical point.”

I think this is the most likely scenario. The genetic changes may have been not only new alleles but also a greater frequency of alleles that were already present in the Neandhertal. This is similar to the fact that African people are adapted to malaria: it’s not only that they have specific gene adaptations, it’s that they have a bigger proportion of alleles that help to resist malaria (these alleles are present in other populations but with a lesser frequency, because natural selections don’t favor them).

Anyway, how do we know that early modern humans were that different from the Neandhertal? If I am not wrong, the “great leap forward” was about 40,000 years ago, when culture is supposed to have been created. Maybe the early modern humans were very similar to Neandhertal and it was only about 40,000 years ago that the genetic and cultural changes happened and this made a difference.

]]>By: Alan Cooperhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35526
Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:32:15 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35526Well, Neuro beat me to it, but I too am inclined to suggest that perhaps what distinguishes “humanity” is the “capacity” for suppressing one’s own intellect and immediate interests in favour of some socially determined doctrine and leadership. Perhaps this does lead to greater reproductive success for individuals who can affiliate with such groups, and perhaps those of us who are too “bright” to be fully “human” might then be well advised under most circumstances to mimic the general dimmness rather than fail the test of credulity and get pruned as defectors from the common interest.
]]>By: chris yhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35525
Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:46:44 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35525Neandertals would not have had their Alexander the Greats, but perhaps they would not have had their Adolf Hitlers.

I’ve always considered that the principal difference between those two was the technology available to them. (one of the few advantages to life in the palaeolithic was that the technology for mass murder was comparatively restricted.)

]]>By: Razib Khanhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35524
Wed, 17 Aug 2011 04:49:23 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35524, but I’m not sure how you got from there to the leadership hypothesis.

just something i threw out. i have no idea what the difference is.

]]>By: Neuro-conservativehttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35523
Wed, 17 Aug 2011 03:17:22 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35523Razib — I follow your general logic, but I’m not sure how you got from there to the leadership hypothesis.

In any event, I might sooner hypothesize that followership (including features such as mirroring, empathy, and docility) is a more likely substrate of human success.

]]>By: Tom Crispinhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35522
Wed, 17 Aug 2011 02:34:14 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35522There was a SF short story circa 1950 (I don’t recall the title or author), the premise of which was that “humans” were omni-present throughout the galaxy, but that earthlings were uniquely capable of coordinated group behavior (in particular military behavior).

The consequences were similar to Razib’s thinking, although the “humans” managed to win in the end.

]]>By: gcochranhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35521
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:54:24 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35521One of the key features of really truly behaviorally modern humans was the ability to make water crossings. Perhaps
Neanderthals and other archaic humans had a specific speech deficit – they were were unable to say “arrrr, matey”.
]]>By: dave chamberlinhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35520
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:50:03 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35520There was no point where mutation made humanity. But there was one where long mixed hybridization between Neaderthals and near moderns out of Africa did. Proven? No. Probable? For now.
]]>By: juanhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35519
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:52:33 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35519Could we have genes that somehow get activated if we sense we are in a leadership position vs a regular drone? Kind of a mild social insect architecture. Cognitive pathways that either don’t get built, or don’t get activated if we aren’t in a high status position? Clearly we are built to sense status. It seems that for some people, and maybe most, their behavior can change fairly dramatically depending on their social status. They will behave much more charismatically in a high status position, but can function as a lower status worker bee if necessary.

Don’t we see this with celebrities? Someone who goes from struggling musician to global rock-star, or waiter to movie star. Does being shown constant respect and admiration change neural architecture? Is it just the plasticity of our brains? As more people defer to us and respect us, our neural pathways devoted to discerning and deferring to the goals of other people wither, and the pathways devoted to expressing our own goals grow.

]]>By: Brian Schmidthttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35518
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:52:13 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35518In-group cooperation seems to be highly effective among modern H sapiens. Charismatic leadership could be a driver of that, as could other genetic tendencies.

If the critical mass Razib refers to needed to change from 80% prevalence in Neandertals to 95% prevalence in moderns, they’ll need lots of genetic samples to work it out.

The role of memetic/cultural evolution makes things even murkier – what if it was a cultural change/innovation that made it all happen, and not easily traceable to genetics? While we’re clearly genetically distinct from Neandertals and I think it’s highly likely to have made a difference, what happened in Africa is less clear.

This could have to do with diet, pathogen resistance, or behaviors not directly related to intelligence, such as aggression or fearfulness

sure. but the thing that seems to weight it to something cognitive is the weird encephalization of the lineage. humans are to some extent sui generis. but our diet or immune system don’t seem qualitatively special. i’m not saying i know the solution, but i’m thinking we need to suspect it isn’t quite banal or typical, because it doesn’t seem like sentient hyper-cultural species are very common in the history of earth.

]]>By: Roberthttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35515
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:19:22 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35515In some countries, Alexander the Great is considered to be at the same moral level at Adolph Hitler.
]]>By: mikohttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35514
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:01:01 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35514I was thinking along similar lines while reading this… Paabo (and most people) want to explain group/society differences as if they can be linearly extrapolated from individual behavioral phenotypes. Everything that makes humans interesting is about groups of humans–individual humans are not smart, innovative, curious or creative unless they are in social environments that encourage and allow these things.

My own guesses (borrowed mostly from others): what gave raise to modern humans is not so much about cognitive abilities, but our ability to live in larger groups at higher densities. This could have to do with diet, pathogen resistance, or behaviors not directly related to intelligence, such as aggression or fearfulness. While we’re extraordinarily efficient at large-scale violence in recent eras, individual humans are, by most mammalian standards and certainly by primate standards, extraordinarily conflict averse (i.e. the domestication hypothesis).

]]>By: rimonhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35513
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:24:29 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35513Razib, fantastic points. and I agree with you about the bisexuality line. It seemed gratuitous, especially since the article goes on to say that he is married to a woman now. Who cares who he dated in college?

What I always wonder about the supposed extinction of the neanderthals at the hands of modern humans is this: why are people so sure that the neanderthals were hunted nearly to death, and not just absorbed into the modern population? in central asia, for ex., we don’t assume that the earlier European types were completely wiped out by the later arriving Asians, we know they mixed together to create the populations we see today.

]]>By: John Farrellhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#comment-35512
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:38:11 +0000http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=13543#comment-35512Razib, are you implying there was no clearly defined ‘ontological leap’ from the animal to the human??? I’m going to have to clear this with the CDF in Rome.